Kevin Van Tighem

So, they decided to spray BhT (the bacterial agent that kills spruce budworm). However, the parks staff said ‘Well, that has to go through environmental assessment, and spraying native insects to interrupt a natural cycle is contrary to everything we just learned about ecological integrity”. So, it essentially blew up. It actually became a huge issue and conflict.
Again, it’s a small park and everyone knew each other. (The cottagers all knew the wardens; the wardens all knew the cottagers- but they were at odds. And the cottagers were extremely politically connected in Waskesiu. The issue totally blew up and Gaby Fortin and Charlie Zinkan ended up wading in and trying to solve it. They sort of put down a rebellion – but it was a rebellion of our own making because those park staff were simply doing what they had been taught: putting ecological integrity first. It was a messy solution: they replaced Norm Stahl as the Manager of Resource Conservation, isolated a couple of other staff, and brought in a new Superintendent. I got the feeling that that superintendent was never fond of wardens in the first place, and then he hired a stakeholder relations person who sided with (actually was part of) the cottage community, and she took sides against the wardens pretty consistently too.

So, when I came in as a rookie superintendent, morale and trust were very low. A lot of people were bruised and, in my opinion, some of them had been badly mistreated. It was quite a challenge just getting folks to talk to me because they’d gotten conditioned to getting punished for speaking truth to power. Quite an introduction to executive management! I was fortunate to have a good Manager of Res Con, Murray Peterson, and some solid warden staff who came to trust me, so I think we’d resolved some of the lingering harm from the spray controversy by the time I moved on. Dealing with the cottage community wasn’t much fun though, because they sure felt like they’d won and that they were in the driver’s seat. That ecological integrity clause in the Parks Act really framed a lot of my career. It’s what brought me back into Resource Conservation in Waterton and then it seemed like all the issues I worked with in following years were based on Parks Canada’s challenges in actually walking that talk.

So, anyway, Banff. When I was in Jasper, before the move to Northern Prairies, we had to develop a “sustainable business plan” for the mountain parks because we were spending way too much of Parks Canada’s budget. They asked Ian Syme and me to co-chair the subgroup working on Resource Conservation. Ian was the manager of resource con in Banff. Banff was pretty good at overspending. We all were, but they seemed to be the experts. And it was hard to make the right decisions because it does cost a lot to run a professional program in our geography. We got it done, but it led to yet more morale problems because the field unit with the biggest cuts (Banff) felt kind of punished. They were used to being the golden boys, I guess.

Then when I went to Banff as superintendent the budgeting had slid back into the red and there were things that needed attention. I recall that someone on high had said that only the armed park wardens would wear the old warden uniform and the Res Con Staff had to wear the regular Parks Canada uniform, which was a goofy combination of red and green clearly dreamed up by some contractor who didn’t know park environments very well. It was kind of bruising for some former wardens not to have the old uniform and warden hat, and to have to wear those ball caps. So, Banff (and I think the other mountain parks) res con managers decided to buy Arcteryx-branded outerwear for their staff and Banff bought a whole pile of black stetson-style hats so that the backcountry res con staff could salve their wounded pride. That kind of stuff led to me cutting a million dollars out of the Banff Res Con budget because it was such blatant waste, and so undisciplined.

Well, the war continued – rather than cut the wasteful spending they cut research and monitoring projects so that they could blame management for that. One project by the Bow Valley Naturalists got cut, and I wore the blame for that my whole time in Banff. There were a lot of undercurrents in the organization in that time, coming out of organizational changes and especially that long fight over arming.

Laura: Were you part of the administration that led to the change from the multifunction Park Warden Service, which included law enforcement, to most members becoming purely Resource Conservation?

Kevin: Not really. It started when I was a staff biologist/warden in Waterton and was well underway when I moved into management and then into the superintendent jobs. But I was involved in the sense that I had to manage the consequences and try to keep the family together, sort of thing.

Laura: How did you feel about meeting with the park wardens to explain to them that their job was being changed?

Kevin: It was awful. Lots of emotion involved, from grief to anger to sullenness. I recall the first discussion of arming came when I was in Waterton. It was a safety question because wardens in Jasper and Banff were stopping vehicles on the through highways, in wildlife speed limit zones, and starting to encounter more risk from hardened criminals passing through. So, there was legitimate concern. You have to give the Jasper wardens credit for taking the initiative to use speed radar in sheep zones, but it did create a safety issue. Then the whole issue blew up with a labour ruling in Banff and it became a no-win situation for everyone. As I recall, most of the wardens I knew didn’t want to be armed when the issue first blew up. It was seen as Banff thing, mostly driven by a couple of personalities. In Waterton, most did not want to be armed. I sure didn’t. Having lethal force is a huge responsibility and risk. I didn’t want to be put in situations where I might make fatal mistakes when there were other effective ways to deal with high-risk scenarios.

But remember what I said about warden culture being a guardian culture. When push comes to shove, people in that kind of a group back each other up, so once it became an ongoing conflict, most people went with their team. I think there was still a big split in how individuals felt about arming, but they saw themselves as wardens first so they backed up the team. By the time I got to Banff, Parks Canada had decided that there would be one dedicated unit solely responsible for law enforcement, and everyone else who used to be called a warden would be Resource Conservation and have no law duties. I had to front that decision and explain that and help people move on, but as a superintendent now I was seen as one of “them” and that didn’t make it easy. I remember at one meeting in the Banff warden office, one of the wardens broke down in tears. She was feeling beaten down and she couldn’t understand why they were being treated this way when they were so committed to their work. It was just kind of heart breaking. Some people were angry, sullen, … heartbroken. Others were fine with the changes, but the ones who weren’t needed to get through that change somehow and it just wasn’t easy.

I will say that that whole thing was as much brought about by the wardens as management. Some people behaved very poorly and created problems for their peers. I remember one conversation with Alan Latourelle, our CEO at the time, when he confided to me something like: “I had to make the decision to have a small, dedicated enforcement group because I was dealing with government committees who were saying they did not want Canada to have an armed public service, and if firearms were essential then they would insist that the RCMP take over National Parks enforcement. And I could not give our responsibilities to the RCMP”. He also said, and he was right, that once a decision is lawfully made by those with the authority to make it, the duty of public servants is to faithfully implement the decision. So, there was an ethical thing, about public service principles, that really offended him when some people just kept on resisting the decision. I had a lot of respect for Alan L. but he also kind of fell into the trap of taking the issue personally and probably lost perspective as things dragged on. He started to see the old warden service as a problem and couldn’t seem to understand how for many it wasn’t an arming debate, it was the culmination of two decades of challenges to who they felt they were. It didn’t help that some wardens burned their bridges and used their work email accounts to say things they shouldn’t have said, as if nobody else would ever read those emails. Too many egos and too little judgment sometimes.

Anyway, that decision was made and I had to explain it to staff and then help to hire the new law enforcement wardens. It was hard. I remember one long-time warden came into their interview acting sullen, looked beat up, and then said something inexcusable about what those arms should be used for. It was really depressing for me to have to explain to that person in a post-board why they didn’t get one of the new positions, but that’s how messy things had gotten. We simply had to make the best of a bad situation. It wasn’t the decision that was bad. It was the situation around it.

I never had a lot of patience for all the nostalgia and sentiment in how some folks looked at the warden service. I remember thinking even early on that some wardens were more in love with the warden lifestyle (involving horses and backcountry) than committed to being Parks Canada team players in a changing world. Historically, you look back at the mid twentieth century when more rural people hunted, more travelled by horse, there was less game in accessible areas, there was more threat to our backcountry so it definitely needed wardens out there, living there and patrolling there. But in more recent years with all the development and use in the front country, that’s where we need res con. That’s where the ecological integrity issues are most pressing. The need in the backcountry has changed, so the shift in emphasis to front-country was right and necessary. But those who were in love with the lifestyle didn’t want to change.

Still, it’s complicated. So, when we did the Banff Management Plan in 2010, I had gotten to the view that maybe we don’t need that backcountry horse-based thing as much anymore, but it’s still part of our culture/ heritage. Not warden heritage but actually Canada’s heritage – the business we’re actually in. And if you don’t use horses, you’re using carbon fuels and climate change is not the business we’re in. So, the 2010 BNP management plan directed that in the backcountry there would be no wheeled transport and no operational use of helicopters (except for emergencies). The idea was that using horses for operational purposes would keep that part of our heritage alive and reduce fossil fuels consumption.

It kind of frustrates me to see now that the law enforcement wardens are doing backcountry horse patrols. Why? We need res con and visitor services staff out there, but law enforcement issues are typically front country issues. That’s where the people are, and certainly where the worst people are. It’s just nostalgia. Backcountry should be about research, monitoring and interacting with hikers and so on, and if there is a law enforcement issue than call the wardens in. But if we only have a few law enforcement wardens, they need to be where the laws are most likely to be broken, not out living the warden dream miles from the crowds. But that’s just me being an armchair quarterback in retirement. Anyway, being in management through that change was like living through a parental divorce and then suddenly realising I’m one of the parents now. Not the easiest of things.

Laura: Despite whatever feelings you had, did you feel this was a positive strategic move for improving the protection and management of National Parks?

Kevin: Yes. The move to a dedicated warden enforcement unit while protecting the rest of the Resource Conservation function was a best-case outcome under the circumstances. I believe Alan Latourelle made the best decision he could even if it came across as a sort of King Solomon thing. We all see the world from where we sit. The job Alan had to do was a very difficult one. He did what he had to in order to protect Parks Canada’s ability to manage its own affairs. But it would certainly have been better if he were better able to empathize with his staff, just as it would have been better if some of the hotheads had been reined in by their peers and managers before things got as bad as they did.

Laura: Did you have a role in setting up this change, or did this come to you from Ottawa?

Kevin: I wore a park warden uniform in Waterton. Personally, I would never want to do law enforcement armed. I didn’t like the fact that we were having the debate. The decision came to me. I had to be part of implementing it and as a public servant I’ve always believed that you do your job, whatever it is, and you do it responsibly and you put your personal preferences aside if that’s what’s required. Not personal values, but personal preferences. Sometimes you can’t give people what they want and need. So, I was not involved in making the decision, but I was responsible for implementing it. And that was fine because I understood it.

Laura: Did you know this was being done across all national parks?

Kevin: Yes

Laura: Did you have any latitude in how to accomplish this directive

Kevin: Not really. It was a national decision, made at the executive table in Ottawa, and our job was to implement it. Our responsibility was to try to do that as effectively as possible and keep everyone on board. If there was any latitude it was only in terms of tactical approach – not to change the direction by to figure out how to make it work.

Laura: and/or could you have questioned the merits of this directive?

Kevin: Yes, we all had that ability, right up until the decision was made. At national superintendent meetings, I had access to the CEO and I was asked what I thought. The job was to offer fearless advice and faithful implementation. That’s public service ethics 101, something some people need to be reminded of. That’s one reason Alan Latourelle got so personally invested in the issue. For him, public service values are essential. He felt that those values were not being upheld. He thought that was a fundamental, ethical problem. Really, it was kind of a running trainwreck. Maybe I contributed by sitting on the sidelines too long. Through most of the arming debate I was at staff level. I didn’t see any profit in it and I didn’t want to take sides. There were people on both sides that I liked. But then when I was in management, it WAS my job but there was no longer much hope of heading off the inevitable.

Laura: If you had been given the choice to change how this directive was carried out, would you have done it differently?

Kevin: No. The issue had developed its own momentum and the decisions that were made were necessary. They were the right decisions – under the circumstances. It was the circumstances that were unfortunate and nobody gets off the hook on making them what they were. Everyone could have done better, but didn’t. So that became the reality. My loyalty has always been to Parks Canada and our public mission first, and only secondarily to any functional unit inside Parks Canada. And I’m proud of that and I’m also proud of all the people I’ve worked with who feel that way too.

Laura: Do you have any lasting memories as an associate with the Warden Service? Favorite park, cabin, horse, trail, training, rescues, people, humorous stories, etc.?

Kevin: Anecdotes: I recall that when I was a park naturalist in Kootenay in the 1970s, Larry issued us with slide film and encouraged us to take photos for the park collection. There was a rescue in Maligne Canyon and he suggested I take photos. Hans Fuhrer was heading up the rescue and when I got in close to take photos I stepped on a rope and this hand came up over the edge, grabbed my foot, and moved it off the rope. It was Hans. He never said anything, just quietly educated the dolt with the camera.

Another. I’ll never forget when we got the news about Neil Colgan getting killed by his horse in the Upper Red Deer. I knew him from university and from work, and he was just so alive you could not picture him dead. It really hit a lot of us hard. And just seemed hard to get your head around the idea that our job could take away someone who loved it so much.

I’ll always remember Bob Hansen having the best day of his life – every time he got into the backcountry. Talk about contagious joy.

Wes Brandford was responsible for the incredible moving bighorn sheep population. When we analyzed the wildlife cards that park wardens used to fill out, back when I was with the CWS wildlife inventory in Jasper, you’d see a big burst of bighorn sheep sightings in one region, then they’d vanish there and there’d be a whole lot in another region. Turned out they were most abundant wherever Wes was stationed, because he spent so much time glassing for them and was so professional about documenting everything he saw. So, we got to figure out where the sheep lived, but we also were tracking Wes through his work assignments.

Laura: Is there anything I haven’t asked you that you think I should know about the Warden Service or your relation to it?

Kevin: I didn’t like the focus on the arming issue. That arming issue is not the story. It just took a bunch of the air out of the room. The history of the warden service and Resource Conservation is way, way bigger than that. The warden service has never been the same from decade to decade. It has had to change as our nation changed. For example, we were not ready for mountain biking, sport climbing, climate change impacts, etc. but they all changed the job and the priorities. We’re always partly in reaction mode, that affects how resource conservation and park enforcement have to change. Much as we might have liked the good old days, they are gone. Nostalgia isn’t much help sometimes. If you don’t change, then you are always going to be wrong-footed. But there is a lot of residual trauma from the changes that came out of the Syme Report and then from the arming issue. It’s not realistic to think people can just detach from things that affected them and their sense of identity that much. You might feel like something has been lost.

But I think most people I see in Resource Conservation these days aren’t bogged down and don’t have any doubt about the value of the work they are doing now, which is very different from the work that was needed in the 1960s, say.

Laura: Is there anyone else we should talk to?

Kevin: Everyone who’s been in res con: Bill Dolan. Bill Hunt (had to deal with things in real time when he became res con manager and had to pick up the pieces, had to deal with the dynamics.) Jurgen Deagle (Jasper). Murray Peterson (Maritimes). Norm Stahl (The PA story).

Many thanks to Kevin Van Tighem for his time, patience, and incredible stories!

Sincerely,
Laura Hunt

Laura Hunt has spent 32 years connected to the Warden Service through her husband Bill’s career as a national park warden, who recently retired as the Resource Conservation Manager for Banff National Park. While living in the national parks of Jasper, Banff, and Gwaii Haanas, she formed many long-lasting friendships and fond memories shaped by life in these unique places. Laura began her teaching career with the Jasper School Division (now Grand Yellowhead) and later worked as a substitute teacher at Sk’aadgas Naay Elementary School in Skidegate. After dedicating ten years to raising her family, she returned to full-time teaching with Canadian Rockies Public Schools. Over the past 17 years, she has guided countless Bow Valley students through senior high English. Now semi-retired, Laura continues to teach part-time at Banff Community High School. She enjoys exploring the complex, adventurous lives of those who contribute to the ever-evolving legacy of Parks Canada through the Park Warden Alumni Society’s Oral History initiative.